JOB PERFORMANCE, TASK PERFORMANCE, CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A NEW SCALE

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to develop a "Job Performance Scale" in order to measure the job performance of employees with a measurement tool with high validity and reliability based on scientific methods. The study was conducted with data obtained from three different sample groups, including universities, health and industry sectors. As a data collection tool, a draft scale consisting of 12 items prepared by the focus working group in the form of 5-point Likert was used in line with the literature. The data were analyzed with the package program. EFA and CFA were carried out in line with the validity studies. Furthermore criterion validity of the scale is also computed with using the job satisfaction scale. According to the results of the analysis, the "Job Performance Scale" consisted of two sub-dimensions and 11 items. As a result of reliability analyzes, it was determined that the scale was highly reliable. With its two-dimensional structure named task performance and contextual performance, it is evaluated that the scale will fill a gap in the field by meeting an important need for employees to determine and measure job performance in future researches.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Job Performance
• Task Performance
• Contextual Performance
• Scale Development

İŞ PERFORMANSI, GÖREV PERFORMANSI, BAĞLAMSAL PERFORMANS: BİR ÖLÇEK GELİŞTİRME ÇALIŞMASI

Öz

Bu çalışmada, çalışanların iş performanslarını bilimsel yöntemlere dayanarak geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği yüksek bir ölçme aracı ile ölçebilmek için, bir “İş Performansı Ölçeği” geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma, üniversitelerden, sağlık, sanayi sektörlerinden olmak üzere üç farklı örneklem grubundan elde edilen veriler ile yapılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak çalışma grubu tarafından, literatür doğrultusunda 5’li Likert şeklinde hazırlanan 12 maddeden oluşan taslak ölçek kullanılmıştır. Veriler paket program ile analiz edilmiştir. Geçerlik çalışmaları doğrultusunda KFA ve DFA yapılmıştır. Ayrıca, iş tatmini ölçeğinden istifade edilerek, ölçeğin ölçüt bağımlı geçerliliği de sağlanmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre “İş Performansı Ölçeği”, iki alt boyut ve 11 maddeden oluşmuştur. Yapılan güvenilirlik analizleri sonucunda ölçeğin yüksek düzeyde güvenilir olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ölçeğin, görev performansı ve bağlamsal performans isimli iki boyutlu yapısı ile, bundan sonra yapılacak araştırmalarda, çalışanların iş performansını belirlemeye ve ölçmeye yönelik önemli bir ihtiyacı karşılayarak alandaki bir boşluğu dolduracağı değerlendirilmektedir. İş Performansı Ölçeği, Türkçe olarak çalışmanın en sonunda sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• görev performansı
• ölçek
• geliştirme
• iş performansı
• bağlamsal performans

Kaynakça

1. Aboagye A. K., Dai B. & Bakpa E. K. (2022). Influence of Risk Perception on Task and Contextual Performance: A Case of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in Nurses. Evaluation & the Health Professions. 45(2):126-136. https://doi:10.1177/0163278720975071
2. Acaray, A. (2019). Pozitif psikolojik sermaye, duygusal emek, görev performansı ve bağlamsal performans arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: Bankacılık ve sigortacılık sektöründe bir çalışma. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi. 9 (1), 73-99.
3. Aggarwal, A., Sadhna, P., Gupta, S., Mittal, A., & Rastogi, S. (2020). Gen Z entering the workforce: Restructuring HR policies and practices for fostering the task performance and organizational commitment. Journal of Public Affairs, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2535
4. Akbaş Tuna, A. (2020). Örgütsel Kısıtların Görev Performansı ve Bağlamsal Performans Üzerindeki Etkisinde Örgütsel Özdeşleşmenin Aracılık Rolü, İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12 (2), 1834-1847.
5. Akkoç, İ. (2017). Yönetim ve Strateji: 101 Teori ve Yaklaşım. İçinde: Ö. Turunç & H. Turgut (Ed.), 3. Bölüm (43-48). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
6. Akkoç, İ., Çalışkan, A. & Turunç, Ö. (2012). The effect of development culture and perceived organizational support to the job satisfaction and job performance: The mediating role of trust. Yönetim ve Ekonomi. 19(1), 105-136.
7. Akkoç, İ., Çalışkan, A., & Turunç, Ö. (2019). Girişimci Davranış: Bir Ölçek Uyarlama Çalışması. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 14(1), 1-10.
8. Aksoy, Ş. & Çiçek, H. (2021). Psikolojik Güçlendirmenin Bağlamsal Performans Üzerine Etkisinde Çalışan Mutluluğunun Aracılık Rolü. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (59), 391 - 419.

9. Alessandri, G., Consiglio, C., Luthans, F., Borgogni, L. (2018). Testing a dynamic model of the impact of psychological capital on work engagement and job performance. Career Dev. Int. 23 (1), 33–47.
10. Al-Makhaita, H. M., Sabra, A. A. & Hafez, A. S. (2014). Job performance among nurses working in two different health care levels, Eastern Saudi Arabia: A comparative study. International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health, 3(7), 832-837.
11. Argon, G. & Vatan, F. (2016). Performans değerlendirme, denetleme ve disiplin. İçinde G. Uyer, G. Kocaman (Eds.), Hemşirelik hizmetleri yönetimi el kitabı (pp. 473-93). İstanbul, Türkiye: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.
12. Arwab, M., Adil, M., Nasir, M. & Ali, M.A. (2022). "Task performance and training of employees: the mediating role of employee engagement in the tourism and hospitality industry", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-01-2022-0008
13. Aslan, M. & Yıldırım, A. (2017). Hastanede çalışan hemşirelerde bağlamsal performans ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Hemşirelikte Eğitim ve Araştırma Dergisi, 14(2), 104-111.
14. Avey, J., Avolio, B. & Luthans, F. (2011). Experimentally analyzisng the impact of leader positivity on follower positivity and performance. Leadersh. Q. 22 (2), 282–294.
15. Bademci, V. (2017). Ölçme ve araştırma yöntembiliminde çağdaş gelişmeler ve yeni standartlar 1: Geçerlik, ölçümlerin kullanımlarının ve önerilen yorumlarının bir özelliğidir. JRES, 4(1), 63-80.
16. Bademci, V. (2019). Tarih eğitiminde ölçme: Geçerlik hakkında doğrular ve yanlışlar. VI. Uluslararası Tarih Eğitimi Sempozyumu’nda sunulan bildiri, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu.
17. Bayık, M. & Gürbüz, S., (2016). Ölçek uyarlamada metodoloji sorunu: yönetim ve örgüt alanında uyarlanan ölçekler üzerinden bir araştırma, The Journal of Human and Work, Volume 3(1), 1-20.
18. Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
19. Blom, V., Richter, A., Hallsten, L., Svedberg, P. (2018). The associations between job insecurity, depressive symptoms and burnout: the role of performance-based self-esteem. Econ. Ind. Democr. 39 (1), 48–63.
20. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
21. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
22. Castilho, A. F. P. (2015). The Relationship of Learning Culture with Contextual Performance and Negative Emotions at Work: The Mediator Role of Job Satisfaction and P-O Fit (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Coimbra & University of Barcelona.
23. Chan, S.C.H. & Mak, W. (2012). Benevolent leadership and follower performance: The mediating role of leader–member exchange (LMX). Asia Pacific Journal Management, 29(2), 285–301. https://doi:10.1007/s10490-011-9275-3
24. Clarke, N. & Mahadi, N. (2016). Differences between follower and dyadic measures of LMX as mediators of emotional intelligence and employee performance, wellbeing, and turnover intention. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1-12.
25. Cleveland, J.N., Huebner, L.A., Anderson, K.J. & Agbeke, D.V. (2019). Lifespan Perspective on Job Performance. Performance Appraisal/Management and Creative Performance: 291-321.
26. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., & Conway, N. (2005). Exchange Relationships: Examining Psychological Contracts and Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 774–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.774
27. Cullen, K. L., Edwards, B. D., Casper, W. C. & Gue, K. R. (2014), Employees' adaptability and perceptions of change-related uncertainty: implications for perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, and performance, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 2, 269-280.
28. Çalışkan, A. & Gündoğdu Özel, E. (2018). İş Performansının Artırılmasında Motivasyonel Faktörlerin Rolü; Yenilikçi Davranışın Aracılık Rolü: Mersin Bölgesi Özel Bankalarında Bir Uygulama. Türk Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3 (1), 1-25.
29. Çalışkan, A. & Pekkan, N. Ü. (2020). Örgütsel dışlanma: bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 6 (1), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.29131/uiibd.736413
30. Çalışkan, A. (2018). Dönüşümcü Liderliğin İş Performansına Etkisi: Lider Üye Etkileşimi Ve Örgütsel Bağlılığın Aracılık Rolü, Toros Üniversitesi İİSBF Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(8), 104-140.
31. Çalışkan, A. (2019). Değişime direnç: Bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 237-252.
32. Çalışkan, A. (2021). Örgütsel Güven. Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması. Antalya Bilim Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(1): 42-59.
33. Çalışkan, A. (2022a). Örgütsel Etik İklimi: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 8 (1), 34-54. https://doi.org/10.29131/uiibd.1118411
34. Çalışkan, A. (2022b). Örgütsel Değişime Açıklık: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması. Aksaray Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14 (2), 191-202. https://doi.org/10.52791/aksarayiibd.1069524
35. Çalışkan, A., Akkoç, İ. & Turunç, Ö. (2019). Yenilikçi davranış: bir ölçek uyarlama çalışması. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 5 (1), 94-111. https://doi.org/10.29131/uiibd.562196
36. Darvishmotevali, M., Arasli, H. & Kilic, H. (2017). Effect of job insecurity on frontline employee’s performance: looking through the lens of psychological strains and leverages. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 29 (6), 1724–1744.
37. Davidescu, A. A., Apostu, S.-A., Paul, A. & Casuneanu, I. (2020). Work Flexibility, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance among Romanian Employees—Implications for Sustainable Human Resource Management. Sustainability, 12, 6086. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156086
38. De Vellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd ed., Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
39. Deniz, M. & Kumru, S. (2022). İş Performans Ölçeği Geliştirme Çalışması: Özel Bir Hastane Uygulaması, Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 32, 2(549-562).
40. Díaz-Vilela, L. F., Delgado Rodríguez, N., Isla-Díaz, R., Díaz-Cabrera, D., Hernández-Fernaud, E. & Rosales-Sánchez, C. (2015). Relationships between Contextual and Task Performance and Interrater Agreement: Are There Any? PLoS ONE 10(10): e0139898. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139898
41. Elsner Twesme, E., Werner, J. M., & Simha, A. (2021). Can We Talk? Improving Employee Contextual Performance Using Motivating Language and Feedback Orientation. International Journal of Business Communication, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211038745
42. Ercan İ & Kan İ. (2004). Ölçeklerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik, Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3):211-216.
43. Erdilek Karabay, M., Demirbilek, İ. & Görmüş, İ. (2020). Türk Sigorta Şirketlerinde Çalışanların Proaktif Kişilik Özelliklerinin Bağlamsal Ve Görev Performanslarına Etkisinin Araştırılması. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (28), 101-118. https://doi:10.18092/ulikidince.678509
44. Farh, J., Podsakoff, P.M. & Organ, D.W. (2007), “Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction”, Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, 705-721.
45. Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 227–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00113.x
46. Goodman S. A. & Svyantek D. J. (1999). Person-Organization Fit and Contextual Performance: Do Shared Values Matter. J Vocat Behav.; 55:254-75.
47. Guo, Y. & Ling, B. (2020). Effects of Leader Motivating Language on Employee Task and Contextual Performance: The Mediating Role of Feedback Quality. Psychological Reports, 123(6), 2501–2518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119862989
48. Gürbüz, S. & Şahin, F. (2018). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
49. Haider S, Jabeen S. & Ahmad J. (2018). Moderated Mediation between Work Life Balance and Employee Job Performance: The Role of Psychological Wellbeing and Satisfaction with Coworkers. Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones. 34(1):29-37. https://doi:10.5093/jwop2018a4
50. Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis seventh edition prentice hall.
51. Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93
52. Harmancı Seren, A., Tuna, R. & Eskin Bacaksız, F. (2018). Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Job Performance Scale Instrument. Journal of Nursing Research, 26 (1), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNR.0000000000000213.
53. Hultin, M., Jonsson, K., Härgestam, M., Lindkvist, M. & Brulin, C. (2019). Reliability of instruments that measure situation awareness, team performance and task performance in a simulation setting with medical students. BMJ Open. 12;9(9):e029412. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029412.
54. Jiang, F., Wang, L., & Yan, L. (2022). The Effects of Job Crafting on Task and Contextual Performance: Focusing on the Mediating Effect of Work Engagement. The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business, 13(5), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.13106/JIDB.2022.
55. Jonsson, K., Hultin, M., Härgestam, M., Lindkvist, M. & Brulin C. (2021). Factors Influencing Team and Task Performance in Intensive Care Teams in a Simulated Scenario. Simul Healthc. 1;16(1):29-36. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000462.
56. Jonsson, K., Brulin, C., Härgestam, M., Lindkvist, M. & Hultin, M. (2021). Do team and task performance improve after training situation awareness? A randomized controlled study of interprofessional intensive care teams. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2;29(1):73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00878-2.
57. Kahneman, D. & Tvertsky, A., (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk Econometrica, 47: 2, 263-291.
58. Kalaycı, Ş. (2006). Faktör analizi. SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri, Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
59. Kaštelan Mrak, M. & Grudić Kvasić, S. (2021). The mediating role of hotel employees’ job satisfaction and performance in the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational performance. Management, 26 (1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.30924/mjcmi.26.1.6
60. Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Lerner, D., de Vet, H. C. & van der Beek, A. J. (2016). Cross-cultural adaptation of the individual work performance questionnaire. Work, 53(3), 609-619.
61. Köroğlu Kaba, N. & Öztürk, H. (2021). Bireysel iş performansı ölçeğinin Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Sağlık ve Hemşirelik Yönetimi Dergisi. 8(3):293-301.
62. Kumar, A., Mohapatra, M., & Dhir, S. (2021). Linking Personality with Contextual Performance through Subjective Well-being Using PLS SEM Modelling. Global Business Review, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509211030360
63. Kumar, P., Kumar, N., Aggarwal, P. et al. (2021). Working in lockdown: the relationship between COVID-19 induced work stressors, job performance, distress, and life satisfaction. Curr Psychol 40, 6308–6323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01567-0
64. Küçük, M. & Demirbağ, O. (2021). Performans yönetim sisteminin doğruluğunun bireysel itibar ile ilişkisinde iş performansının aracı ve lider-üye etkileşiminin düzenleyici rolü. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(40), 44-69. https://doi:10.46928/iticusbe.745960
65. Law, K. S., Wang, H. & Hui, C. (2009). Currencies of exchange and global LMX: How they affect employee task performance and extra-role performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(4), 625–646. https://doi:10.1007/s10490-009-9141-8
66. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662–674.
67. Loan, L. (2020). The influence of organizational commitment on employees’ job performance: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Management Science Letters , 10(14), 3307-3312.
68. Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.241
69. Methot, J. R., Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Christian, J. S. (2016). Areworkplace friendships a mixed blessing? Exploring tradeoffs of multi-plex relationships and their associations with job performance. Personnel Psychology,69(2), 311–355.
70. Meydan, C. & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları, Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara. Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G. C. & Guarino, C. (2005). Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation‖, SAGE Publications. ISBN-13: 978-1412904124.
71. Motowidlo, S. J. & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475 Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job Performance. In Handbook of Psychology, I.B. Weiner (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei1203
72. Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C. & Schmit, M.J. (1997). A Theory of Individual Differences in Task and Contextual Performance. Human Performance. 10(2):71-83.
73. Nemteanu, M.-S. & Dabija, D.-C. (2021). The Influence of Internal Marketing and Job Satisfaction on Task Performance and CounterproductiveWork Behavior in an Emerging Market during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18, 3670. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073670
74. Nye, C.D., Ma, J. & Wee, S. (2022). Cognitive Ability and Job Performance: Meta-analytic Evidence for the Validity of Narrow Cognitive Abilities. J Bus Psychol 37, 1119–1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09796-1
75. Özdevecioğlu, M. & Kanıgür, S. (2009). Çalışanların ilişki ve görev yönelimli liderlik algılamalarının performansları üzerindeki etkileri. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2009(1), 53-82.
76. Palenzuela, P., Delgado, N., & Rodríguez, J. A. (2019). Exploring the relationship between contextual performance and burnout in healthcare professionals. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35, 115-121. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a13
77. Pattnaik, S.C. & Sahoo, R. (2021), "Employee engagement, creativity and task performance: role of perceived workplace autonomy", South Asian Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 227-241. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-11-2019-0196
78. Pindek, S., Howard, D. J., Krajcevska, A. & Spector, P. E. (2019). Organizational constraints and performance: an indirect effects model, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 2, 79-95.
79. Razack, S. S. & Upadhya, A. (2017). An Exploratory Study Of Performance Management Systems and Their Influence on Better Performance: A Literature Rewiev, Electronic journal, 1-15. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2906625
80. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). “Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of The Literature”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:698–714.
81. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825–836.
82. Rotundo, M. & Sackett, P.R. (2002). The Relative Importance of Task, Citizenship, and Counterproductive Performance to Global Ratings of Job Performance: A Policy-Capturing Approach, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66-80.
83. Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking Organizational Resources and Work Engagement to Employee Performance and Customer Loyalty: The Mediation of Service Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217–1227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217
84. Schat, A. C., & Frone, M. R. (2011). Exposure to psychological aggression at work and job performance: The mediating role of job attitudes and personal health. Work & Stress, 25(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.563133
85. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H & Müller H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness of-fit measures, Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8 (2), 23-74.
86. Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling, Second Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
87. Schweizer, K. (2014). On the ways of ınvestigating the discriminant validity of a scale in giving special emphasis to estimation problems when ınvestigating multitrait-multimethod matrices. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 56(1), 45-59.
88. Shafique, I., N. Kalyar, M. & Ahmad, B. (2018). The Nexus of Ethical Leadership, Job Performance, and Turnover Intention: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 16 (1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.7906/indecs.16.1.5
89. Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E. (2013). The role of employee engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship and deviant behaviours. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 2608 - 2627.
90. Shin, I., Hur, W.M. & Kang, S. (2016), “Employees’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility and job performance: a sequential mediation model”, Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 5, 493.
91. Stajkovic, A.D. & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a metaanalysis. Psychol. Bull. 124 (2), 240–261.
92. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 25, 173-180.
93. Stieler, M. (2017). Creating marketing magic and ınnovative future marketing trends. Bayreuth: Springer. Şahin E.T. & Kanbur A. (2022). Presenteeism in healthcare professionals and its effect on job performance (contextual performance / task performance). J Nursology. 25(1):7-13.
94. Tezbaşaran, A. (1996). Likert Tipi Ölçek Geliştirme Kılavuzu, Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları. Ankara.
95. Van Zyl, L. E., Van Oort, A., Rispens, S. & Olckers, C. (2021). Work engagement and task performance within a global Dutch ICT-consulting firm: The mediating role of innovative work behaviors. Curr Psychol 40, 4012–4023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00339-1
96. Veerasamy, C., Sambasivan, M. & Kumar, N. (2013). Individual Skills Based Volunteerism and Life Satisfaction among Healthcare Volunteers in Malaysia: Role of Employer Encouragement, Self-Esteem and Job Performance, A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS ONE 8(10): e77698. https://doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077698
97. Venkateswara Rao, T. (2016). Performance Management: Toward Organizational Excellence: Vol. 2nd edition. Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd.
98. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation, New York: Willey.
99. Wang, G. & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). The Effects of Job Autonomy, Customer Demandingness, and Trait Competitiveness on Salesperson Learning, Self-Efficacy, and Performance, Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 30:3, 217-228.
100. Wang, H. J., Lu, C. Q., & Siu, O. L. (2015). Job insecurity and job performance: The moderating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1249–1258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038330
101. Westen, D. & Rosenthal R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: Two simple measures, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (3), 608-618.